Replying to LO28182 --
Dear Organlearners,
Daan Joubert <daanj@kingsley.co.za> writes
>I wrote of "At's 7 E's" and you commented ...
(snip)
>and continued to disown ownership on the grounds
>that others had walked the path, or parts of it, well
>before your time.
>
>This is perhaps like saying we cannot speak of Maxwell's
>Equations because they could not have been framed
>without the work of an Ampére, an Ohm, a Coulomb
>and all the other guys who may not have their names
>attached to same part of the whole. So I will follow what
>I have seen others do here at LO and refer to the 7 E's
>as At's and nobody elses!
Greetings dear Daan,
How can I ever convince you as seemingly the spokesperson of a long
tradition. But let me try again. It seems as if I have given them away so
that they do not belong to me any more. But actually they never belonged
to me. Only the fact that I found them together belongs to me. That I
cannot give away even if I want to. So to whom do they belong? Whoever
wants to patent them as his/her intellectual property will have the most
difficult task ever to proof it.
>At, you seemed not to enjoy my splitting
>"becoming-being" into its two parts (like two sides
>of a coin - inescapably enjoined) viewing them as
>'process' state'. I know that you are happy when we
>articulate our own views - which shows a deep
>generosity - but I would like to explore what you
>wrote in this regard: (snip)
Dear Daan, I do not enjoy when you do it, even though you are free to do
it and explore what will become by doing it. The reason why I do not enjoy
it reminds me too much of what I had been doing self up to 1987 (if I
remember correctly).
I have been trying to find a logic of commands (not the usual logic of
statements) since 1972. Treatises on declarative logic (of statements)
abounds, but up to 1987 not even one was available to me in literature.
Before 1985 I tried several times to invent one, but it banged out time
and again. Then I discovered the 7Es (seven essentialities of creativity)
together in 1985 (I do hope I have these years correct).
In 1987 I said to myself:- "try again to invent a workable model for
declarative logic" and as an after thought added "and stop splitting
becoming and being". That afterthought was crucial since within a week or
two I did create the model. (I cannot remember how long it took because
time was standing still for me.) As I was articulating this logic with
lines and symbols, I felt like and eagle soaring high up in the sky.
Before me appeared the very "laws of teaching" (please notice, not the
"laws of learning") in print. The joy of this soaring made up for all the
pain I experienced in the past for splitting them.
>IMHO there are (might be) a few (??) things that are
>constants - not absolutes, because they are likely to
>rely too much on one's basic premises.
Please, do not understand me wrongly. I do not deny the
existence of constants. Take merely one example, the universal
constant "h" of quantum mechanics and called Planck's constant
in honour of him. (And please let this not give you reason to
all the 7Es "At's 7Es" to honour me because I will find a way
to argue against that too ;-) But Planck's constant exists merely
by virtue of the equation
energy = h x frequency
(I have to refrain myself utmostly not to delve into the wholeness
of this equation.) It is "h" together with "frequency" which gave
birth to quantum mechanics. Few understand that the same
happened to relativity theory. Here it was
distance = c x time
where c is the velocity of light, another universal constant. Do not
let the mathematics of 3D space and thus
x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = (c x t)^ 2
lead you off track.
The only think which I ask you to question thoroughly, is the GR the
constant "h" or the "h x frequency". Whatever answer you find I will
respect, but I cannot promise to stop questioning that answer ;-) But I
pledge to do it respectfully.
>> It is really impossible to speak or write about one
>> of the 7Es, say liveness, and avoid using the other
>> six 7Es. We can avoid refering to them explicitly and
>> calling their names, but their patterns occur implicitly
>> in whatever we say or write.
>
>Yes, that I can understand. I had that experience
>creeping up on me when I was writing the "GR and
>the 7 E's' post!!
You made me burst out ;-) \\ _ //
(With this addition to the smiley ;-) I mean I am laying on my back
arms and feet in the air, shaking them with laughter.)
>At, you will know what I mean when I say, "Hamba gahle!"
I think Senge explains it in the Fifth Discipline
>With great appreciation, to you and others here
>who show a way.
The same here.
With care and best wishes
--At de Lange <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.